Pages

Sunday, September 24, 2017

I am intrigued when a book reconnects me to favorite
activists, to my own writing, and to concerns I’ve struggled with for most of
my career. Celine Coggins is founder and former CEO of Teach Plus – more about
them later. Her book, How To Be Heard: 10
Lessons Teacher Need to Advocate for their Students and Profession is that
book. My National Board trainer, brilliant advocate, Nancy Flanagan, and my
online friend, Doug Martin, author of a cautionary tale about education in my
home state of Indiana, have prior experience with Coggins’ work. Their insights put Coggins' book into context for me, and expand my understanding well beyond these pages.

The ‘big idea’ that brings all this together in my eclectic
mind is teacher leadership. Nancy has written often and well about teacher
leadership sometimes being nothing but cleverly-constructed ‘teacher
management’ – using the name and credibility of a respected educator to
promote others’ agenda (Notice the fact that Nancy refers to Coggins in her
post). She points it out, and she
challenges the concept thoughtfully and reflectively. Her piece inspired me to think about the ways
I’ve
been managed in the past.

I was drawn to the book because I know I need to become a
better advocate for schools and students and families…I’m missing the boat
somehow. When I visit with legislators one-on-one I ask them for advice about
advocating, and I get advice like, build relationships, bring your passion,
focus on issues not personalities. OK…I can do that. I’m a teacher. But there’s
got to be more.

How to be Heard
has a kernel of what I’m searching for. Educators and legislators use the same
words, but mean something completely different, and we must recognize that fact,
and use it. “Equity” for teachers is making sure every student has an
opportunity to thrive in our classrooms, and in our schools. For policy makers,
it means systems are in place that might close the achievement gap; it means
improving teacher quality in some measurable way (read test scores).

When we use “students” or “kids”, we can conjure up a sea of
individual faces, our kids. Our classes. We are advocating for those students.
Policy makers, because their sphere of influence is so much larger, these same
words have an abstract, generic meaning. Their “kids” are all the students in
the state, or in their district. Educators who advocate should be aware of that
shift of meaning, and know it goes with the territory.

Coggins also analyzes other language differences between
educators and legislators – our knowledge base (content, management,
development vs. research on systems, rules of education policy), our influences
(direct vs. indirect), the process we focus our attention on (inputs vs.
outcomes), levers for change (relationships vs. legislation), our vision of
professional success (impacting lives vs. re-election), and the pressures we
encounter (scarcity of time, factors outside our classroom, and the needs of
our students, vs. resource scarcity, a desire to measure accountability, and
that equity I described above). Teachers are practitioners; policy makers are
social scientists and researchers.

This, I think, is the piece that was new learning for me…and
important for me to think about as I work with legislators.

When we understand policy makers’ concern with scarce
resources, we understand how teacher salaries seems to be the most useful
variable in forcing change. In any district’s budget, teacher salaries make up
the majority of dollars spent. That is why we’ve seen such a push to do away
with the traditional teacher salary schedules, to add schemes to pay teachers
for high student test scores. Legislators are tinkering with the largest lever
they have.

One more part of Coggins’ message I will enfold into my
advocacy is the idea of coming with solutions. I need to come to conversations with ideas, a ‘third’ way to
help solve the issues and problems facing education policy makers. Have ideas,
not just “No”. I often enter the process after the legislation
has been written, too late to have influence. I feel like I’m always behind the curve. I need to be involved earlier in the process. I
need to bring education research to conversations to help craft legislation,
not use the research after the bills are presented to show how bad they are.
Easier said…

Coggins' ideas of advocating from a position of limited power, a position when I am building power are useful: learn patience, help find that
new plan, meet one-on-one, be creative, write and research, build coalitions.
As I look at that list of actions, I see the work that teachers do every day.
We are the experts, and we have the skills to reach out to influence policy. We
need to remember this.

One of Coggins’ ten rules is this: “Accountability is
inescapable.” I agree, and support that…but part ways with her when she says
testing will always be a part of accountability, even as she admits that testing
is broken. She suggests educators help policy makers make ‘better’ tests…I need
her to spend more time talking about broken tests, and broken accountability
based on broken tests. She fully supports the idea that achievement tests
measure learning, a typical policy-maker stance.

She believes teachers should be evaluated on student test scores, on value-added measures. She believes that incentive pay should be based on student test scores. She believes that student attendance should be used in accountability measures for schools. She believes teachers associations should be challenged, and sees her work as the catalyst. She seems to side with disruptions that seem to benefit education reformers.

Her examples of how her teacher leaders have participated in
policy making gave me that twitch between my shoulder blades that I always feel
when I’m being managed. It seemed like her teacher leaders came to the
conclusions policy makers approved..so is it leadership? Or managed teachers?

Her vision of ‘teacher leadership’ really seems to be that
managed leadership Nancy talked about. It’s ‘we have the good ideas, and when
you come onboard, we’ll let you talk about these great ideas. We’ll use your
reputation and your credibility to sell our idea.’

Here is where my friend Doug’s work comes in – here,
and here
linking Coggins’ work with Bill Gates. Her stances are suspiciously similar to Gates' goals for disruptive reform. Doug’s book Hoosier School Heist is one
of the most important books I’ve read about how ideological school reform
can affect our students. She and her ‘teacher leaders’ used Gates money to
write legislation that changed teacher employment practices in Indiana.

In my mine, she is a managed teacher herself. She’s bought
into reformers’ narratives about schools and teachers. Her work at Teach Plus seems to be focused
on creating more managed teacher leaders who will go out and preach her
message, funded by Bill Gates’ grants. Go back to that list of her beliefs, and connect
the dots with Gates money.

She begins and ends her book with the power of stories…and
this is where we both are on the same page. Her first rule is ‘Advocacy begins
with your WHY,’ without crediting Simon Sinek’s book, Start
with Why: How Great Leaders Inspire Everyone to Take Action. In my work with teachers, I will ask them to
begin here…and, I’d love to ask policy makers their WHY. This could build those
relationships educators need to be successful advocates. Her tenth lesson is, “Your story has to meet
the moment,” and she includes tips about creating your story, and using it to
build your credibility. So, we agree about stories’ power.

We also agree with her ninth lesson, but my point of view is
much more cynical. “If you’re not at the table, you’re on the menu.” I can’t
help but think she’s carefully grooming her teacher leaders to be at the table
as the entrée. That they’ll agree with and support policy makers’ views without
challenging. I don’t want to be at the table in this scenario.

Bottom line? I’m still looking for a book that will show me
how to take my reputation and my credibility to the table and hold on tightly
to them both, and not relinquish them as the price of admission. Does anyone
have some ideas?

Thursday, September 21, 2017

I often brag about having smart friends, because it's true. My friend Brendan was posting a series of pieces on FaceBook about how to talk to legislators, and how to answer some of their favorite attacks on public schools. I begged him to combine them all into one post that I could publish for us all to share.

In OK, we are going into a special session next week, supposedly to find new revenue to fund our state, and to fund teacher raises. That may or may not happen. But, if you find yourself visiting with a policy maker, and they fall into any of these conversations, Brendan has supplied your non-confrontational, professional, fact-filled responses. I thank Brendan, and you should, too! BTW -- lobbying photos are with very friendly legislators would NEVER talk to constituents like Brendan's fictional one.

"You are a
teacher. You are embarrassed that your
friend from overseas shared an article with you about Oklahoma, your home
state, refusing to fund core services such as education and health care. You have seen teachers in your school quit
teaching when they had babies because their salary does not justify paying for
day care so they might as well stay home.
You have seen teachers leave for other professions and other
states. You have been encouraged to
speak to your legislators about the problem, but are not sure how. You decide to try, and make an appointment to
talk to the elected state representative from your district.

You: I would like to
talk to you about the education funding problem in Oklahoma.

Legislator: Funding
to Oklahoma schools had actually increased.You: That includes
federal dollars for federal programs and cannot be used for teacher salaries
and textbooks. It is your job to fund those things. Funding is lower per pupil than it was in
2008.

Legislator: Education accounts for more than half of state government spending.
You: That is because you have cut so many government services that education is the biggest piece in a smaller pie even after cuts. Districts don't meet payroll with percentages, they need more dollars.

Legislator: Your
district seems to be doing fine, look at your athletic facilities.

You: Facilities are funded with local bond money; our community
decides to invest in our kids in an election every year.

Senator JJ Dossett

Legislator: Look at all the free meals you provide.

You: That money comes from the federal government. Our nation
decided that kids should not go hungry at school many years ago.

Legislator: So why
don't you just pay teachers more?

You: Most of the money that goes to teacher pay is allocated by
the state legislature. That funding has been cut by over $48 million while
enrollment has gone up by 8,000 students.

Legislator: The funding formula is so complicated. How are we supposed to fix education funding when nobody understands how it works?

You: You don't have to know exactly how an engine works to know that you have to put gas in it.

Legislator: So why
don't we just make it so local districts can use bond money to pay teachers?

You: Well, that would cause several problems. First, it would
cause further inequities between districts who benefit from high property
values and those that don't, and make it even more difficult for many districts
to retain teachers. Second, it would place a further tax burden on homeowners
and renters by raising their housing costs, and would force people to weigh
their household budget against the education of their children.

Legislator:
Administration wastes the money we give schools to line their own
pockets.

You: There is already a law concerning
administration costs. It caps the amount
that can be used for that purpose. In
fact, at under 3.6%, administrative costs are lower state-wide than what is
legally required. Of course there may be
individual examples of waste in districts.
That is a local school board issue
and can be dealt with at that level, in keeping with the conservative principals
of local control and limited government.
As a legislator, you should be most concerned with the overall numbers.

Legislator: We have
too many school districts. If we force
rural districts to consolidate, we will have fewer superintendents and we can
pay for teacher raises.

You: Again, administrative costs are only at
3.6%. Consolidation will not save much
if anything and will give people false hope the way the lottery did. In ten years, people will be saying, “wasn’t
consolidation supposed to fix this?”
You do bring up a good argument against charter schools, though.

Legislator: Schools
need to be run more efficiently. We the
legislature will audit and oversee the administration of schools.

You: You mean the same legislature that has been
featured in state, national, and international news for its lack of problem
solving skills? No thanks, I would
rather have communities control who runs their local schools. Again,
that’s good argument against vouchers/ESA’s, as they lack accountability
measures for the schools receiving funds.

Legislator: Then how
are neighboring states managing to pay teachers more than we do?

You: They have a higher Gross Production Tax on oil wells and/or
higher state income tax. There are other revenue measures involved as well.

Newly-sworn-in Rep. Karen Gaddis

Legislator: So you
are saying it's on me?

You: Yes

Legislator: If we raise the GPT, oil companies will leave the state.
You: Oil companies are beholden to their shareholders. As long as there is oil here, they will drill it, and we have the SCOOP and STACK plays that are booming right now.

Legislator: What are
you doing in my office anyway? If you
care about your students, shouldn’t you be in class or working on lesson
plans? You shouldn’t be advocating for
an increase in your own pay.

You: I am here because I care about students, and
want them to have the best education and teachers possible, and you are one of
the people who has control over that. I’m for a teacher raise because it helps the
state retain good teachers, not out of self-interest other than the fact that I
want to be able to do the job that I love in the place that I love, and it is
currently difficult to do.

Legislator:
You are just listening to that liberal teachers’ union. They are just dang liberal liberals.

You: The Oklahoma Education Association includes
teachers from all political perspectives, and focuses on education policy, on
which there is more and more common ground.
They work with legislators from both sides of the aisle, but certainly
wouldn’t support a legislator who bashes teachers and does not support
funding. That would be dumb. Besides, many groups other than OEA are
supporting teacher raises, including a group that represents oil and gas
producers. They all represent both
Republicans and Democrats.

Legislator: I saw in the paper that a teacher did a really
awful thing. Should we be giving
teachers raises when they are doing stuff like that?

You: So every person in a given occupation should
be judged by the actions of a few?
Let’s talk about Ralph Shor…

Legislator: Never mind

Legislator: It is
clear that I should vote to return to the rates of GPT and the top bracket of
state income tax that existed before we cut them. That would help us retain
teachers and not put the burden entirely on families or other groups that can
less afford taxes. I'm going to go do that right now.

You wake up elated, and then disappointed that it was only a
dream. You should have known because it
went a little too well. You know it
won’t go that well in real life, but you know what to say,
and you have every right to say it."

Brendan Jarvis is in his 14th year
of teaching at Union Public Schools in Tulsa and his 20th year over
all. He began his first term on the
Oklahoma Education Association Board of Directors representing Tulsa Metro Zone
D this past summer. His children attend
Union Schools and are members of the Renegade Regiment marching band. He is a proud Union teacher and a proud union
teacher.

Alas, I was incorrect. OFC, funded directly by AFC, congratulated Darin Chambers, Republican candidate for HD46 on his primary win, aided in part by their attacks on his opponents.

This is MY House district, and these last days of the campaign (VOTE on Tuesday, September 12), OFC has sent attack ads to our mailboxes, defaming MY candidate, Jacob Rosecrants. It's a tactic they employed in the primary against his Republican opponents, and, frankly, we knew it was coming. Time-worn strategy:smear the opponent with too little time for them to mount a rebuttal, and do it with dark money so the candidate can feign shock and surprise, while reaping the advantage of the attacks.

The flyers are clear that they have not been "approved" by the candidate, giving Mr. Chambers the gloss of deniability. But, there is no denying the fact he's relying on out-of-state money...money from a group that has vouchers as its prime directive. They will want votes from him. Even if he hasn't 'approved' the attack flyers, we know there will be a reckoning...and it will involve his votes. I, for one, do not want MY Representative to pay AFC and OFC back for their support with votes for vouchers when our schools are not fully funded.

Disclaimer: Jacob Rosecrants is my friend. He was my student. I've literally watched him grow up, grow as an educator and as an advocate. These attacks are ones I take personally for my student and friend. But, I'm trying to follow the positive example of Jacob's campaign, and trying to tamp down my outrage and hyperbole.

Rage amplified by the fact that a Norman Public Schools Board Member is featured prominently on Chambers' campaign literature as a supporter. Yes, a Board member of a PUBLIC school district, one of the best in the state, is supporting a candidate funded by a group who pushes private school vouchers over public schools. "Disturbed" is the politically-correct term for my emotions.

We must fight for OUR schools, OUR students...and Jacob is the only choice for HD46. We must tell DeVos and her foundations that they are not welcome in #oklaed. Jacob has been supported by legions of neighbors, knocking doors, making calls, hand-writing postcards. Volunteers have streamed down from Edmond every weekend. We know what's at stake and we're committed to Jacob's positive message.

In case you think I'm the only one incensed over this dark money trick, my friend Alison McCormick Petrone described the situation well. I am using her words with her permission:

"American Federation for Children is a voucher peddling SuperPac with chapters in every state attacking Public Ed. They have endorsed Darin Chambers because he believes in vouchers and charters, and created a smear campaign of a dedicated and talented local public school teacher in an attempt to seat another voucher-pushing corporate Private Ed state representative.

"Public Ed is truly under attack in Oklahoma. This cannot be stated any more clearly. The groups want all of our children to go to corporate, for-profit schools. These D.C. SuperPacs they have created to push their agenda may have bottomless cash bags, but we will not be intimidated by their money and lies because our children deserve a quality public education by birthright as Americans.

"Vote for Jacob Rosecrants! Get out and volunteer for Jacob. Make calls from the Hilton meeting room today through Tues. Get people out to the polls.
"This isn't about Democrat vs Republican. This is about our kids."

I've sent the following to our local paper as a letter to the editor. But, knowing the election is Tuesday, and my letter may not make it into print, I'm sharing it here. So, on the great chance I've missed the deadline to have my letter printed, here it is to be shared.

"There have been some ugly flyers dropped in HD46’s
mailboxes, full of innuendo and downright attacks against candidate Jacob
Rosecrants. I’ve known Jacob since he was my student in English 1 and English 2
at Central Mid High. I watched him as a student, always with a smile on his
face. I watched him create friendships with his classmates, reaching out to
everyone, being inclusive and positive. You were never a stranger when Jacob
was in the room.

I watched him decide
to become a teacher and those same gifts I saw in the fourteen-year-old Jacob
helped him forge climates in his classroom of mutual respect and acceptance. He
has taught in some tough schools in OKCPS, and he has thrived.

I saw him show an interest in fighting the school reforms
that were damaging his classroom. He educated himself on the issues and found
his voice. As a social studies teacher
who takes his role seriously, he began to speak out, to advocate for his
students and their families.

Some of the volunteers Saturday morning! 4 Central Mid High folks!

I saw him begin to take an interest in politics, attending
meetings, joining party groups, speaking up and speaking out. I’ve seen him
educate himself on other issues that voters in our district care deeply about. Jacob
has built a grass-roots campaign with volunteers who believe in his message of
inclusion, public schools, health care, and adequate funding of schools and
other core services. He ran a positive campaign against Representative Scott
Martin, learned valuable lessons, and was ready to run again. He has prepared
himself to lead.

How ironic that an out-of-state group who works against
public schools is now financing the attack ads in our mailboxes. US Secretary
of Education, Betsy DeVos is someone we should trust with our public schools.
But she has a long history of favoring privatizing our schools, giving vouchers
to private school families, at the expense of public school students and their
families. The Oklahoma branch of Ms. DeVos’s foundation, Oklahoma Federation
for Children funded attack ads against several of the “Teacher Caucus”
candidates in the last election, using their out-of-state funds to blanket
districts with what we are now seeing in our district. Vouchers and privatizing
schools are their core issues. In the last election cycle, OFC spent $190,000
to attack Teacher Caucus candidates, $180,000 of which came from the National
Federation for Children (Oklahoma Watch
1/10/17).

While we must wonder
about the independence of a candidate who would accept assistance from OFC and
NFC, we will never doubt Jacob’s support of public schools and adequate funding
for our core services.